Kash’s Corner: SCOTUS Leak; Controversial DHS Disinformation Board Could Target Americans; Durham Wins Key Motion
What will be the consequences of the leak of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion on Roe v. Wade? What form should a proper investigation take?
What will be the role of the new Disinformation Governance Board under the Department of Homeland Security? Its new head, Nina Jankowicz, is under fire for past comments she’s made, including citing Christopher Steele’s “expertise” on the evolution of disinformation and questioning the authenticity of the Hunter Biden laptop.
And what might be contained in the documents that ex-Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann and other Clinton campaign associates are trying to keep from special counsel John Durham?
We discuss all these questions and more in this episode of Kash’s Corner.
Kash Patel: Hey, everybody. And welcome back to Kash’s Corner.
Jan Jekielek: So, Kash, we’ve got a ton to talk about today. Of course there’s this Supreme Court leak that we absolutely have to talk about. How did that happen? We’re definitely going to talk Durham. I think we’ll save that for the end. But Durham has delivered us another, and the court frankly, has delivered us even more information to update our viewers about.
But then I think we also need to talk about this Disinformation Governance Board. It figures into a lot of work that you’re actually doing with Fight With Kash and so forth. Also there’s this connection with DHS also to the border that we should cover. So it’s going to be a big episode.
Mr. Patel: I guess today’s Kash’s Corner episode is a choose your adventure, but I urge our audience to watch all of it. I’ll start with the Supreme Court. Look, as a recovering lawyer who was a public defender and a terrorism prosecutor and who dealt with rulings by the Supreme Court constantly that impacted my cases that I was trying, putting the substance of the matter to the side, my concern for our episode is the leak.
How the court is structured is there’s nine justices, and each of those justices has a number of law clerks, just like most federal judges throughout the country, but the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court. So they have the best and the brightest who come in from the top law schools in the country. And they’re the ones largely responsible to take direction from their respective justice to start drafting opinions on cases and matters that they’ve heard and also matters that they’re going to hear and make recommendations on whether or not they should hear them.
What happens is there’s a circulation of the memorandum internally at the Supreme Court. The only people that actually see the substance of any draft memorandum are the justices and their law clerks. Now, there’s other folks, clerk officers, and clerk staff that procedurally move the paper around. And in the olden days it was literally moving paper, but now it’s just electronics. So that process has been eliminated and there’s even less people who see it. And rightfully so because the Supreme Court’s interest in keeping matters confidential until they’re ready to make a final decision is of the utmost importance. They are the final arbiter in the United States of America.
To me, this leak is just another example of how far the “progressive liberal movement” has come, that it’s impacted and infected these top legal minds at the Supreme Court who are serving the justices of the court. You would think that was impossible. No matter what your political tuning, how far left or right you are, you would say this is a Supreme Court, it doesn’t happen here.
Well, it does now. And that’s how far we’ve come from actual justice and keeping with confidentiality and the integrity of the court, and it is. To say it’s a stain on the court is putting it lightly. How they recover from this is going to be integral to regaining American trust in the Supreme Court. But there are those that are cheering this leak, which is if not as troubling, more troubling than the leak itself.
Mr. Jekielek: So there’s different theories I’ve heard, one of them is that it was a progressive law clerk, which it seems like you’re suggesting it might be that. But I’ll get you to tell me. But another one I heard is just there’s someone, one of these people who are moving documents and just came across this and put it out, that’s another theory I heard. Another one I heard was that it might even be on the conservative side that the leak happened.
Mr. Patel: Those are all possibilities until an actual leak investigation is completed. You’re right, I’m not saying definitively it was one of those three or a combination or something else. Wherever it came from, that person needs to be found. And I don’t know that there’s an actual crime you can punish them for. But I’m pretty sure, like every other government position, when you handle sensitive matters, you sign non-disclosure agreements, NDAs, as we call them, as government officials, especially as senior government officials at the Supreme Court.
And if you violate the NDA, there are consequences to whether or not you can maintain a security clearance, whether or not you can have government employment in the future or ever for that matter. And there are certain DOJ regulations that are within those nondisclosure agreements that may be applicable to you as a violation of law. So there could possibly be prosecution based on that, though it’s going to be hard to prove.
Look, leak investigations, whether they happened during Russiagate, whether they happened during the impeachment one, Ukraine fiasco, whether they happened under matters related to Afghanistan or what have you, a lot of that involve leaks of classified information, which is…
To me, a leak is a leak, it’s just as bad whether it’s classified or not, it’s harmful to American national security interest. And this, I think, was done for political interest. And I remind our audience, the decision of the court is not final, only published opinions of the Supreme Court are the interpreted law of the land, are the binding authority, the precedent for the law of the land. This was a draft opinion. Justices are entitled to change their mind [and] justices are entitled to draft opinions.
And there’s a process they undertake because they have to pick who’s going to, and this is getting into weeds a little bit, but some justices will concur entirely or concur in part, others will disagree. And they have to weed out that information because legal minds, lawyers who look to the Supreme Court, will take language from all of those pleadings in one place and apply it for decades going forward.
They will say, Justice so-and-so concurred in part or agreed in total and used this language. And they will use that to make their case going forward. Or this justice disagreed entirely or in part. But when he agreed, he or she agreed, we want to highlight this section of the law. And so I don’t know, I saw that Justice Roberts said he’s ordering a leak investigation—that’s great.
Mr. Jekielek: By the Marshall of the court.
Mr. Patel: It’s not a knock on, it’s the right move to order an investigation, A but the Marshall of the Supreme Court doesn’t have the entire capabilities of a full investigatory body or agency or group to do the technical analysis of computers and emails and see, look, this was published in “Politico,” that is not up for debate, it was leaked to “Politico” and “Politico” published it, so we know that. So as a former federal prosecutor, I would start issuing grand jury subpoenas involving these individuals to say, who have you been talking to? Who have [you] been communicating to? Where are emails? I’d go to the computers at the Supreme Court.
Mr. Jekielek: You’re talking about the clerks here or the journalists?
Mr. Patel: Both. And then I’d go to the computers at the Supreme Court and say, okay, who has access to which computer? And I’d pull the data and I’d pull the emails and I’d pull the personal servers and the public servers. And I’d also look at their phones, both their private phones and their public phones, their government phones, and look at their messaging applications, both encrypted and non-encrypted and start calling all that information.
Because somewhere along the way, what we call we make a daisy-chain, we build a flow chart that has A connects to B, connects to C. And we piece that leak investigation together. Then we thin the herd and we say, okay, this is what happened. Or then we issue another grand jury subpoena for the actual person to come in and say, this is our information, this is what we believe you did, do you have something to say?
I just don’t think the Marshall of the Supreme Court has that capability, that bandwidth. That’s not their job. Their job is to secure the Supreme Court justices, it’s to secure the building, and it’s to secure the safety of the public that are in and around the Supreme Court. That’s their top priority. Other agencies and departments have those specialties throughout our intelligence community and our law enforcement community.
Now, I don’t know if there’s a special investigative panel that can be set up. I don’t necessarily have faith in Congress as it currently stands to do any real investigating on this matter. But maybe the Supreme Court. Look, they are the Supreme Court, if they wanted to bring in an outside investigative body to do it, they could do so. They could hire me, I would do it. But hopefully Chief Justice Roberts can steer this investigation with some teeth because it’s gutting our faith in our highest institution of the judiciary and recovering from that is going to be almost impossible.
Mr. Jekielek: So this is exactly what I was just thinking about. As you said, many people have been saying this is gutting faith in one of the few institutions that people had faith in still. But I can’t help thinking again, if it is indeed a progressive play, so to speak, there’s an interest in that in itself in the foundations of all these institutions, having them not be functional, to replace them with something, we don’t know what that is. So that’s my biggest concern. How do you deal with that?
Mr. Patel: The tangential immediate consequence is you have people running around thinking they know how to interpret Supreme Court pleadings and Supreme Court decisions when they don’t. It’s not a final decision. You have people going out there saying Roe versus Wade is over. That’s not what this draft decision says, but it’s not final, so I’m not going to comment on it. But having the whole world and the entire mainstream media comment on the impact of this nondecision is the biggest form of disinformation that the highest court in the land could possibly encounter. And they have to recover not just from getting the law right, but they have to recover from the disinformation that has been caused by this leak.
So now you are going to have, and this is the other thing Jan didn’t say, it’s not like the final opinion from the Supreme Court was coming out tomorrow, it’s months away. These decisions take months and months of drafts and redrafts and recirculation and edits and reviews before they’re finalized by the members of the court as it should because you have to get it right. Now this is going to be a hanging chatter of sorts for the next summer, the entire summer if not longer, where people are going to be out there continuously saying, this is the decision of the court or this is what it means and this is the law.
And that is just catastrophic not to mention the fact that a lot of lower courts, when I say lower courts, other federal courts, courts of appeal, district courts, state courts are looking to the Supreme Court who are adjudicating legal decisions that may or may not intersect with the Supreme Court’s precedent. So what are they going to do? By law, they should be waiting. But now I know for a fact that there’s going to be some lawyers out there who are going to say this is a draft decision and try to influence a lower court. Which is equally as destructive to our legal system and our judiciary as the leak itself.
Mr. Jekielek: That’s just fascinating, it’s an angle I hadn’t thought of, that just basically there’s just going to be mass chaos until the actual decision.
Mr. Patel: My fear is the actual decision will come. That’s definitive. It will happen. But by the time it comes, no one will pay attention to the actual law. They will have conjured up months and months and months and months of disinformation and shoved it out there. Then we will have done the American public a disservice because they will have, like they did in Russiagate, get fed nonsense for four or five years. This is a shorter timeframe, but then they won’t tune in on the backend to say, what’s the actual decision? What does it mean? And that’s just the biggest problem.
Mr. Jekielek: That’s frankly fascinating. It’s something that I wasn’t expecting today in our conversation. But disinformation is definitely something we’re going to talk about today and this new Disinformation Governance Board, but maybe even just DHS in general. Let’s start there, it was again fascinating, I’ll use that term, to learn that the DHS is tracking 42 people on the terrorist watch list within the country. Peter Doocy had asked questions in the White House about this. I’m just trying to wrap my head around this, what does it mean that 42 people on the terrorist watch list are in the country or were somehow let into the country?
Mr. Patel: Well, that’s the bigger problem, Jan. So what DHS just disclosed is that the secretary of Homeland Security said they are watching 42 people on the terrorist watch list that crossed into the country illegally. That means they came in likely through our Southern border, because they don’t really come in through the Northern border, illegally.
They were stopped somewhere along the way by a federal official because that’s really almost the only way you can figure out whether or not that a known terrorist watch list person is in America. There are a few other ways, but I don’t think that applies here. To me, that is the most shocking piece of news I’ve seen in recent history, especially as a counter-terrorism guy, as a national security prosecutor and Intel guy, and DOD guy.
Peter Doocy was right to ask the White House. It took 19 terrorist hijackers to execute 9/11. Now you’ve got 42 guys you’re telling us about who are known terrorists watch listers running around America. What are you doing about it? And how closely are these 42 people being watched? I know what it takes to watch one terrorist in America.
I did it from coast to coast and it took six teams of 40 guys to watch this one person just to stay on them because they were a known terrorists that we were targeting for investigatory purposes, which is what you’re supposed to do. The bigger problem well, I wouldn’t say that’s the bigger problem, maybe a problem of equal magnitude is if the DHS secretary is telling America we found 42 that came in, what about the others that you missed?
Let me put it in perspective for our audience. In March of 2022, 221,000 illegal immigrants crossed our Southern border—221,000. The Homeland Security secretary came out and said they got 42. I know in my work in national security over my career that that means they missed a lot, which is equally scary. Who did they miss, and not just terrorists, what about narco-traffickers? What about murderers? What about rapists? What about just outright criminals?
And to me, it highlights the failure of the Biden administration’s national security policy, specifically here the border. They are doing something completely opposite of what we did under President Trump, and I think it’s failing. The statistics speak for themselves. I think Americans should be alarmed and concerned and demanding more answers as to where these 42 people are. Are they in your community? Are they in mine? Are they in your friend’s state? Are they in your parent’s state? Where are they settled down? Are they working for people and we are not reporting it?
I understand you have to build investigations, I know that takes time. That they were let in, that they’re hailing this as a victory, that’s the other problem. The DHS secretary is running around saying, and I now call the DHS secretary the disinformation officer in chief because what they are doing is putting political narratives ahead of the security of the American people.
And I’ve continuously said repeatedly on this show that it’s the ultimate politicization of the national security apparatus, and this is just another version of that. They’re actually going around hailing this as a victory, much like they did when the Department of Defense and President Biden drone striked seven children in Afghanistan and ran around and claimed that to be a victory for two weeks as repudiation for the murders of 13 American U.S. soldiers. They took a political narrative there and injected it into the national security apparatus. They’re doing the same thing here, and it’s just as hurtful. And I think you were going to hear a lot more to this story that’s going to not protect American national security interest, only hurt us.
Mr. Jekielek: What does it mean to be on the terrorist watch list? Does that mean we believe you to be a terrorist? Is that what that means?
Mr. Patel: So some of that information is classified. But generally what it means is basically there’s sufficient data against a certain target that they qualify under the law and under the regulations to rise to the level of being a terrorist watch listee. And it’s not easy to hit that mark, I don’t mean to laugh, but it’s not. It takes a lot of information, a lot of intelligence to have someone meet that measure. Then once you’re in it, there’s a reason you’re in it, there’s many reasons you’re on it. It could be who you associated with, it could be past travels, it could be past conduct, past criminality, largely overseas information, which is always sensitive. Do we get it from allies? Do we get it from sensitive intelligence collection methods? All those things come together and the inter-agency then comes together to decide, should so and so be watch listed or not? And it’s a high bar to meet and it’s a concerning bar because how many… Even if one of these 42 turns out to be “a terrorist” who executes an attack in America, then this entire plan that Biden has instituted has failed.
Mr. Jekielek: Does that mean if you’re on the watch list, that you shouldn’t be let into the country?
Mr. Patel: There’s a high likelihood that you should not be let into the country. It’s not 100 percent because there are mistakes made by the government when watch listing people. We sometimes get the names wrong, we sometimes apply the wrong information to the wrong person. Some of that information proves to actually be not credible once we’ve run it out.
So not everyone. But when you’re talking about 42 and when you’re talking about 221,000 people illegally crossing in one month of March of this year, it is impossible to believe that it’s just 42. It’s probably you have to factor a multiplication of 1,000 in there. And that’s more like the real number of known criminals, terrorists, and narco-traffickers, human traffickers that are on that list.
Mr. Jekielek: Hard to fathom.
Mr. Patel: It’s troubling.
Mr. Jekielek: Where does this 1,000 factor come from?
Mr. Patel: Well, you take the numbers from my time in government and from that statistic I just put out that 42 out of 221,000 isn’t a lot. And it’s not the general ratio that we’ve seen as the border policies have shifted from President Trump to President Biden. And that 221,000, just to put it in perspective year over year, is a 543 percent increase of illegal border crossings. So when you take the numbers, the hard analytical data that you can’t argue against, and you do some basic arithmetic on who’s coming in and the ratio of criminals and terrorists that are known to be in those groups, 42 is just not the number. It’s much, much, much higher.
Mr. Jekielek: So let’s talk about the Disinformation Governance Board which is under DHS. And as I understand, it was in existence for a while already and now it’s basically been announced by Secretary Mayorkas. Nina Jankowicz has been basically made the head of it. What I found really interesting was that she was actually commenting a while back about Christopher Steele and his credibility, I’ll actually read the quote. Basically she tweets that Steele, “Provides some great historical context about the evolution of disinformation worth the listen.”
Mr. Patel: So what’s the date of that tweet, Jan?
Mr. Jekielek: August 7th, 2020.
Mr. Patel: So that to me is pretty telling, that the head of this “Disinformation Bureau/Ministry of Truth” is relying on the credibility of Christopher Steele who helped perpetrate the biggest criminal conspiracy against this presidential election cycle and a sitting president, whose credibility has been destroyed by his own work, by the own people that hired him. This lady has now been put in charge as the queen of disinformation policing. To me, this is the ultimate hypocrisy and why Americans are so ticked off at government.
In my opinion, I don’t think there is more disinformation ever put out on one subject by one group of people than during the entire Russiagate hoax. And the man who led the charge with his dossier was Christopher Steele. And this lady is complimenting him and saying, in 2020, after it has all been disproven, that we should look to him for credibility. I just don’t, again, believe that the Biden administration is actually putting national security interests first, they are putting political narratives. And it’s not surprising to me that Secretary Mayorkas at DHS, the same guy we talked about regarding the border, is now standing up this disinformation bureau and allowing her to lead it.
Mr. Jekielek: And Secretary Mayorkas also said, I believe when questioned about this, that this Disinformation Board wasn’t actually going to be monitoring disinformation among Americans. Is that how you read it?
Mr. Patel: Well, I don’t have faith in anything that guy says in terms of credibility when it comes to who he’s going to monitor and who his Disinformation Bureau/Ministry of Truth is going to monitor after his catastrophic handling of our Southern border. So when that cabinet secretary comes out and says, I basically am guaranteeing that no American citizens are going to be watched or surveilled under this, I think that it’s a guarantee that American citizens of certain political stripe will be monitored and watched by this Disinformation Board, especially when the lady he placed in charge with it holds the chief disinformation officer of the world, Christopher Steele, in such high regards still.
Mr. Jekielek: And to your point, so Nina Jankowicz also multiple times from what I saw, gave credibility to the Hunter Biden laptop hoax hoax, for lack of a better way of describing it. Something actually that came to my mind was that basically the guy who ran the repair shop where this laptop was found in the first place, he himself after this was disclosed or leaked, he was subjected to all sorts of I think death threats, people were throwing feces and eggs on his shop. And now he’s basically come out and said he’s basically suing all sorts of folks. He’s basically saying, “There’s 51 intelligence officials that came out and were basically pushing disinformation against me.” What do you make of this?
Mr. Patel: So this is the problem that we’ve been talking about. About how disinformation is utilized by the mainstream media and puppets like Adam Schiff and company to launch personal missives against individual Americans who should never be attacked in the first place because what they’re throwing at them is completely false. And that’s another problem with this information turning into defamation. This guy who had to move across the country just to get away from this finally filed. This is obviously personal to me because Fight with Kash is a foundation based on bringing defamation cases for people who can’t afford to bring it themselves.
And this individual is suing “Politico,” Adam Schiff, and I think a couple others. I’m suing “Politico” and “New York Times ‘ myself. So I understand what he’s going through for defamation. What he’s ultimately saying is that he didn’t do anything wrong. He literally is saying, “I was the owner of this shop that this laptop was brought into and then I gave it over to the FBI.” What’s wrong with that? If the FBI is interested in the investigation, that’s where they should go to acquire the laptop. Think about it, this man went out of business.
Mr. Jekielek: And that’s the thing, I didn’t mention that he was vilified, he was pelted, but actually he lost his business in the process.
Mr. Patel: He has no way to earn money. He had to move across the country to get away from it, and now he’s thankfully filed a defamation lawsuit to get it back. Now, I think he’ll probably have some success against the media outlets. But of course Adam Schiff will hide behind the speech and debate clause because that guy, since he’s in Congress, can run around and say whatever he wants without any repercussions.
But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t call him out for his disinformation and include him in the lawsuit. I think that rightfully so. I think you have to force him to come into court and say why he shouldn’t be held responsible for defamation under the law. It’s something I’m very passionate about in terms of getting people to court and having them clear their names. And it’s literally why fightwithkash.com exists. That’s the whole purpose.
Mr. Jekielek: And is Fight with Kash involved at all with the John Paul Macisaac lawsuit?
Mr. Patel: Nothing to say publicly yet. So just to remind our audience what fightwithkash.com is in quick form, is if you’ve been defamed or deplatformed by the media and you don’t have the resources or the lawyers to go ahead and file a defamation case and take yourself to court to clear your name, we, fightwithkash.com, go around the country raising money and finding lawyers. And we will walk into court with you and pay those lawyers if you have a righteous defamation case.
On top of that, we will review your case for free and give you our opinion with our defamation team, a group of tremendous lawyers. And they will say, we think you have a case and we don’t think you have a case. And it’s going to be no charge to you because through personal experience, I know the fight to clearing your name, especially when you’re in the right and you’re at the merciless attack of the mainstream media and Adam Schiff.
Mr. Jekielek: Let’s jump to Durham here. This week, it was something quite interesting. It’s basically Durham looking back at some FEC filings or FEC determinations against the Clinton campaign and just drawing the court’s attention to them. Tell me about that.
Mr. Patel: So we highlighted a few episodes ago that the FEC’s filing and decision was that the Clinton campaign broke the law. They broke federal election law by taking campaign money that they had raised and they had allowed it to, instead of using it for campaign purposes, to go out and sign up people to vote and mobilize voting groups and things like that. They had taken some of that money, millions of dollars I believe, and utilized it to hire Fusion GPS who hired Christopher Steele to do opposition research.
That is literally against the FEC law, you cannot use those funds for non-election purposes. The Clinton campaign got caught. The FEC said they broke the law. Then the Clinton campaign came in and agreed to pay the fine. Which means they were agreeing, in my opinion, to have done it. Because if they wanted to fight it, they’ve got the money, they’ve got the resources, they could have stretched this thing out.
But I think as I said before, they wanted to get this narrative behind them. And I don’t think they saw this coming by John Durham, this strategic stroke of genius by John Durham. Because what he’s saying, and if you haven’t, you have to go back and watch our last couple of episodes on Kash’s Corner to get up to speed here.
But in support of his motion, John Durham’s, to pierce and destroy the claim of attorney-client privilege and work product privilege that Fusion GPS and the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Committee, the National Committee and Sussmann and Elias and all these guys have made in the Sussmann case that’s currently going on in federal court. He’s saying, wait a second, I’ve got some of the best evidence from the Clinton world.
The FEC said you broke the law. They said you took campaign dollars to hire a firm to do opposition research. So I’m going to enter that into evidence in the case here. It’s genius. What are they going to go in and say now? No, no, no, just kidding, we paid a fine, we lied about lying, and we take it back. He’s boxed them in.
We predicted a while ago, Jan, that I don’t think this attorney-client privilege had ever had a chance of withstanding the facts, that’s what should matter. But it did have a chance from there, the Sussmann and company’s, Clinton world’s standpoint of being used in the media to drown the facts out. Which is what their go-to move is in a lot of these cases when they’ve run out of facts. And John Durham said, well, as I’ve always said, “The best information is always your opponents when you can use it against them.” And that’s exactly what he’s done here with this filing.
Mr. Jekielek: And if I recall this payment of the fine, that wasn’t covered very much either.
Mr. Patel: No, it was by design. I think methodically by the Clinton campaign world, we’ll check and we’ll move on. But I don’t think they counted on John Durham to be like, “You guys launched an entire campaign through five separate individuals coming in and pleading in a federal indictment that this was all an attorney- client work product relationship and Fusion GPS was not doing opposition research.”
But you, the Clinton campaign who were the bank, who hired Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele said in a federal election case where they copped to breaking campaign finance law, that Fusion GPS was hired to do opposition research. So once again, which one is it? It doesn’t matter to John Durham because the judge is going to look at it and say, “You, Sussmann and Clinton world have no credibility.” All this information is coming, and that’s where I think it’s going.
Mr. Jekielek: So continuing on with Durham, the judge seems to have made a series of rulings on some of the motions that were submitted, including this one of reviewing the documents in camera, and we discussed that a little bit recently. So is there anything more to this now?
Mr. Patel: So the judge is making, as we’ve been going along the way, he’s been making some rulings and holding off on others. This one’s important. It goes to the heart of what John Durham’s been asking the court for, which is you, the judge need to review all this information, these documents that the defense and company have withheld from me; the defense being Sussmann, Fusion GPS, Clinton world, Clinton campaign have withheld 1400 documents.
John Durham hasn’t even seen them because they, on the other side, took it amongst themselves to say, “You’re not allowed to see them.” But thankfully that’s not how federal court works. They can get away with those shenanigans in Congress, which they did [when] we were running Russiagate but not against a federal judge. And the judge rightfully said, “John Durham’s made a pretty good case here. I the judge, I’m going to look at every single one of those documents. And then I the judge, I’m going to decide which ones John Durham’s allowed to use.”
And that’s all he’s ever been asking for, he John Durham. Because he’s been saying the information is so critical to his case in chief. And he’s also been saying, as I think the judge is now going in that direction, that there is no attorney-client privilege, there’s no work product privilege because that’s what Clinton world was hiding that information behind.
And that’s the kicker that I don’t think many Americans realize, and we’ve never said before on our show. John Durham has not seen the content of those documents. But they’ve been withheld from him probably for a good reason because it doesn’t help Sussmann, it doesn’t help Clinton world, it doesn’t help Fusion GPS. It probably destroys the narrative they had pled in federal court and it could show them to have committed a fraud to the court by lying to this judge.
Mr. Jekielek: And he won’t be happy if that’s what happened.
Mr. Patel: Well, listen, I know I’ve appeared before scores of federal judges, Republicans, Democrats, independents, Libertarians, what have you. I can’t remember a single one of them that was happy when someone came before them as an officer of the court and lied and committed a felony. So watch out, this could get pretty heated.
Mr. Jekielek: And the other interesting development is Judge Cooper basically granting this motion to compel this Fusion GPS, I guess, worker or executive to actually testify in the trial. That’s going to develop some really interesting material I think.
Mr. Patel: And I think this is our last Durham update, but I want our audience to know we’re coming out with a really cool special offer from Kash’s Corner, details coming very soon. What the judge did was, if we could take it back a second again, the defense, as I’ve been saying all along, overplayed their hand, strategic blunder after strategic blunder. And the defense went out there and said, “Hey, Rodney Jaffe, the tech executive, the guy who basically ran operation Alfa Bank Trump tower server connection,” for lack of a better term, “for Clinton world and Sussmann and company-“
Mr. Jekielek: Based on pleadings, based on-
Mr. Patel: Based on all of Durham’s pleadings, correct, and based on their own information; they being Sussmann, Clinton world, Jaffe, and all their own emails, their own documents. It’s not like John Durham’s just coming in and saying, this is what I think happened, you can’t do that in a federal pleading. What Fusion GPS and Sussmann and Clinton world, they were scared of what this Jaffe guy might or might not say.
They made this strange maneuver to have him immunized from the defense side. Which as we talked about earlier, is a legal impossibility. Only the Department of Justice, not even a judge, only DOJ can grant immunity for a witness. So the question was back then, what’s this guy got to hide? What is he going to do? Well, to me, that means John Durham knows that he’s the critical node in terms of evidence. But as we’ve talked about in the past, it looks like Jaffe, the tech executive’s going to plead the fifth.
So unlike in “Perry Mason” and “Murder, She Wrote” and all those old trial shows, the witness doesn’t come in to court and say, I plead the fifth, that doesn’t happen. The witness informs everyone beforehand and he or she never comes to court. So what John Durham creatively did was well, now that you the defense have forced Jaffe to plead the fifth, which is his right, I, John Durham, still have evidence I need to procure and present in my case in chief regarding specifically the issues about not just attorney-client privilege and work product, but what was the essence of this information that Jaffe was working on. And some of it is pretty technical, for layman’s terms, it’s not for everyday jurors to understand. It’s not even for me, you, or most people in America to understand.
So Durham says, “I need the Fusion GPS tech executive, tech expert to come in and speak to this since Rodney Jaffe has told me, the prosecutor, he’s pleading the fifth.” And of course Clinton world was like, “No, no, no, no, no.” And fusion GPS was like, “Absolutely not.” Which I found stunning because I found as a federal prosecutor, if I issue a federal subpoena for a witness to show up from anywhere in America, they’re showing up by law.
Or the judge is going to order the United States Marshals to go get that witness. I’ve had that happen. So you can’t dodge a federal subpoena as a witness. So what the judge basically did was he said, “Okay.” Motion to compel just means a side is asking the judge to force a matter or decision. And the judge said, “Yeah, why would I obstruct the application of a federal witness subpoena before me, before a trial that I am about to hear?” So again, I think they’ve boxed themselves in.
Now look, this lady could, of course, come in and also say she’s going to plead the fifth. But I don’t think that’s likely because she’s just going to be utilized for technical expertise about some of this Alfa Bank server DNS data nonsense. What that does is it shows the jury the nature of the relationship between Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, Michael Sussmann, and that whole group that was involved in what I call this criminal conspiracy.
It destroys Michael Sussmann’s position that he did not lie to the FBI. Because that’s what he’s been saying the whole time, “I didn’t lie to the James Baker at the FBI, I was upfront.” But this is just another layer that John Durham’s bringing to say, well you did because your clients were Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele and Rodney Jaffe and all these other folks and now you’re trying to hide from that. I don’t think a federal judge is going to allow it.
Mr. Jekielek: It just actually made me think of a tweet I’ve come across by an anonymous Twitter account that’s been doing really interesting research around this whole Russiagate Durham’s work and so forth. The account’s called UndeadFOIA. So I’m going to read something that they wrote and I’m going to get you to comment on it as we finish up. He says, “The best thing that conspirators could do would be to fall on their swords today. Go to Durham, don’t even try to make a deal, just give him everything you know. In five years, most people could still be free of this.”
Mr. Patel: I had not heard that before.
Mr. Jekielek: That’s his commentary, your thoughts?
Mr. Patel: I think it’s in line with some of the other commentary I’ve heard about people saying Clinton world is going to force Sussmann to take a plea, to strike a plea bargain that is to avoid trial and admit his guilt and then try to stay out of prison by either cooperating with John Durham and his investigation, providing information to him so John Durham can continue, as he, John Durham, has said himself, continuing his ongoing criminal investigation into all things Russiagate, to include targets such as Rodney Jaffe and Clinton campaign folks and Fusion GPS folks and maybe Christopher Steele and his sources oh, and the Igor Cherevchenko indictment and the other indictments that I think are come.
My position as a former federal prosecutor and public defender who had tried many, many cases is the trial is less than two weeks away. And as a federal prosecutor, the purpose of a plea bargain is to avoid trial and avoid the Department of Justice and your team from preparing for that massive job or deal that is putting on a federal criminal trial.
If the defense does it early enough, they get what’s called acceptance of responsibility, their punishment is lesser, they’ve admitted to the crime, they’ve done basically a thing in court that we call an allocution, which mean they’ve stood up, defendant have stood up in court and said, judge, I did this, I’m guilty of this, and this is a description of my conduct. But the reason I give our viewers that whole background is, 10 days to go to trial, I as a federal prosecutor would not accept a plea bargain from the defense.
Now, what the defense could do, and this is why I think a plea bargain is unlikely for multiple reasons, we’re so close to trial. And unless John Durham needs critical information that Michael Sussmann provides that he, John Durham, didn’t know Michael Sussmann was going to provide, then there could be a reason to plea bargain. Outside of that, it’s too late in the game. You’ve seen we’ve covered the flurry of work that John Durham has undergone to prepare for trial through his pretrial motions, his motions in limine, his motions to compel, his motions for expert witnesses, his motions to use 404(b) evidence, and all this other information to show a joint venture conspiracy. It’s just too late in the game.
Now, the defendant always has a right to plead guilty straight up to the court, is what we call it. And basically he can go into federal court and say, judge, I plead guilty and we’ll fight it out at sentencing between John Durham and I. The prosecution can’t stop him from pleading guilty to the court. So I think that’s the scenario that’s dancing around with these tweets and other truths I’ve seen out there from guys like Techno Fog on Truth Social.
But I’m not sure. I just don’t know the cards that John Durham’s holding. If he needs certain key pieces of information, then you always take what you can get to build a greater conspiracy and go up the pyramid. But if he already has it and he’s exerted this much work and energy, I’d say, no, thanks, we’ll see you at trial.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, and I for one, I’m very curious what’s in those 1,400 pages of documents that I guess the judge is going to get to look through in the process. So I think it’s time for our shout-out.
Mr. Patel: Well, not quite yet. So as I said earlier, we have a very special offering for subscribers to Epoch TV and Kash’s Corner. When I was running the Russiagate investigation and I had no affiliation with Epoch Times or Epoch TV or anything, one of the things you always do as an investigator or prosecutor or public defender or an Intel guy, even when I was man hunting terrorists, is you come up with flow charts, with diagrams to track who’s who in the zoo, how do they connect with each other, what’s a quick blurb on them. And the Russiagate scandal exploded into such a massive criminal enterprise that it was even hard for me at the time to keep up with all the figures in government, in the private sector, in the political universe, in the expertise, in the realm of Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele and whatnot.
So I was on the interwebs one day and I came across what I think is the best infograph on Russiagate, on Spygate that I’ve ever seen. And it’s this one that we’re about to put up to show our audience. I think it’s incredibly accurate, it does a tremendous job laying out all the key figures in Russiagate. And we have a special offer, as they said, coming to our folks who subscribe to watch the show very, very soon. We’re going to print large hard copies and offer them to our audience. But one addition, I’m going to sign every copy through this offering for our subscribers. I think it’s going to be a pretty awesome keepsake. And it’s one of the few things that has withstood the test of time when it comes to Russiagate.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, I was just going to say this is one of these things that as they say aged well.
Mr. Patel: It did, it did.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, I think it’s time for a shout-out.
Mr. Patel: So this week’s shout-out goes to Eric Reinhold. Thanks for being an absolute warrior for Kash’s Corner and all things Epoch TV. If you haven’t seen him, check him out on Truth Social, check us out on Truth Social. We are constantly posting more and more daily details about Durham, Durham Watch Updates, and about national security matters that we think are of consequence. So check me out @Kash, check Jan out at @JanJekielek, and check out Epoch Times @EpochTimes on Truth Social. And we will see you next week on Kash’s Corner.
Mr. Jekielek: Hey everyone, I’ve got some exciting news to share for American thought leaders in Kash’s Corner. We’re actually going to be expanding our production team and hiring an associate producer. You can actually see the job description at ept.ms/associateproducer, that’s all one word. If you know anyone who might be interested in this job who has the qualifications, or you yourself might be interested, we’d love to hear from you. Again, that’s ept.ms/associateproducer, all one word.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
* Click the “Save” button below the video to access it later on “My List.”
Follow EpochTV on social media: